Notes from the 9-10-07 contract negotiation session with Minneapolis Principals' Forum

Present for district: Emma Hixson, Allen Cavell, Steve Liss, Peggy Ingison, Mitch Trockman, Dan Lowenson, Bernadeia Johnson.  For principals: Roger Arenson, Joan Franks, Tim Coddotte, Larry Lucio, two other principals I don’t know.

Emma starts the meeting off about 8:15.  Roger Arenson, a lawyer representing the principals, is not present at this point, so there is some discussion about waiting for him or not.  It is agreed to start with out him, and he joins the meeting five minutes after the conversation begins.

The first topic is my presence in the room, and Emma introduces me to the group.  There are questions about if my presence is allowed; one administrator says she thought that the meetings were confidential, one principal asks about the training the negotiation team went through, and how each member of the team had some level of accountability (apparently a reference to controlling communication about events at the negotiation session). Both administrators and principals express a concern about how news of this session would impact the concurrent teachers’ session.  Emma answers the questions by flatly saying that the meetings are open meetings, and that the negotiators can't control the communication of observers.

There have been two prior session of the principals’ negotiation.   The conversation at this session starts up quickly with the district responding to something the principals have previously proposed about donating their sick leave time to other people.  [In their contract, principals are granted a sick leave benefit, which they can cash out at some point.  The main point of this first discussion seems to be that the principals essentially want to voluntarily pool this benefit.  Beyond the sick leave defined in the contract, the principals also have a short-term disability benefit, which has some differences]

Emma starts the conversation by talking about a “sick leave pool” and saying that such a pool is "ephemeral", that there is no actual pool.  A principal tries to clarify, saying that the issue is about how principals could donate their sick leave to another principal or teacher.

Emma responds that the principals can decide exactly how they want to do it, and suggests that as long as the proposal doesn’t really cost the district any more, the details of the change are not of great concern to the district administration. She invites the principals to do the legwork of finding out what is legal and cost-neutral and then putting together a specific proposal. Emma also notes that a recipient of a donated sick day would have to notify MPS payroll, and another administrator confirms that such a donated day would have to be treated as extra taxable income.

Roger has joined the discussion by this point, and asks if there is a legal opinion about how such a donation plan would work.  An administrator responds that the IRS code is pretty clear about how to handle such things, and Roger agrees that the tax code generally says that any compensation is considered income unless it is an explicit exception.

Emma tries to clarify her understanding, saying that she thought the principals were proposing a sick leave “pool”, but what she is now understanding them to be proposing a sick leave donation program, which is different.  She says that the district is okay with a donation program, again implying if it is cost-neutral.  Another administrator seeks clarification, asking about the principals’ sick-day cash-out policy.  A different administrator responds that by taking a sick day that one principal would cash out, and donating that to another principal who would use it as an actual sick day, this would actually increase the district’s “liability” (apparently meaning “costs”).

Now having this slightly different picture, Emma responds that instead of donating sick days to each other, that principals should instead donate vacation days to each other, and another administrator clarifies the logic behind this; principals are compensated for 60% of unused sick days, but they are compensated for 100% of unused vacation days.  Donating vacation days would not increase the districts costs, but donating sick days would.

At this point, Roger suddenly asks to confer with Emma outside of the negotiating room.  They are gone for a few minutes, and then return.  Roger starts the conversation right back up before he finishes sitting down.

Roger says that he has one more comment about the sick leave issue, and that is that vacation does not “roll over” year to year, but sick leave does. Roger implies that this makes the comparative yearly costs of potentially donated sick days unclear in comparison to the yearly cost of potentially donated vacation days. An administrator acknowledges Roger’s point and says that she is now unclear if the sick-leave donation would increase the district’s costs.

Emma then says “How about we take a look at the costs of your proposal?”  The principals appear to have previously presented a proposal regarding their compensation and benefits, and the district has assembled all of the elements of their proposal into a cost model.  A paper detailing all of the costs is passed out, and an administrator leads the whole negotiation team though the proposal.  As I cannot see the sheet, it is difficult to discern some of the details.

The top line of the cost analysis appears to be the total change in direct compensation.  The administrator describes the main elements of principals’ proposal as a 4% increase in year 1, a 4% increase in year 2, and a change in vacation time.  The administrator appears to be estimating the total additional cost to the district as $651k for year 1 and $591k for year two. The administrator says that these costs include “step increases” defined in the current principals contract, a proposed five additional days of vacation, a 15% increase in staff development, an increase in the sick-leave cash-out from 60% to 70%, and a couple other minor things.

[The next part is confusing. The topic is about an increase of some type of “days”.  It appears the principals are proposing increasing the number of salaried days and a corresponding decrease in the number of cashed-out vacation days.  The administration contends the proposal will cost the district more in the long run, but the principals contend it will not.  This seems to be based on the fact that principals are proposing a slight reduction of current benefit for an increase of pension benefit.  Roger says that cash-out days are non-pension-able, so they must be proposing to make more days pension-able, having more salary days in exchange for less cash-out days.]

An administrator asks the group if they ever determined a pattern for how many principals take the cash-out option and Emma says that yes, they found that 116 out of 116 principals took that option.  Roger notes that the vacation-day cash out is a significant amount, and Peggy says something about 2700 per person.  Another administrator asks what the advantage is for the principals, and someone replies that is in the pension calculation that uses the five highest years of salary.  Roger notes that the principals actually have some internal disagreement about this issue, as it is kind of about paying a cost now for a benefit later.

Roger switches subjects and asks Emma if it would be possible to split out health insurance costs on the sheet they are looking at between single and family.  Peggy says family is $78k, and that single is twice that, checking her numbers then reconfirming that numbers of $160k for single and about $80k for family [these numbers don't make sense to me].

Roger asks about some line on the cost estimate about replacement costs. An administrator says that this reflect an increase in the budget for reserve principals, that because the principals are asking for five more days of vacation, this means the district will have to increase expenditures on fill-in, or reserve, principals.  A principal mentions that one other MPS principal found that her vacation cash-out was charged to her building budget.  Several administrators express surprise at this story and say that it not what is supposed to happen.

The discussion on the cost analysis of the principals’ proposal seems to come to an end, so Emma proposes that if everybody has finished questions, the group can tour to the district’s proposal. Emma apologizes for not having some element of the district’s proposal in writing, but the administrators pass out a sheet that appears to detail the administration’s proposal.  There are not enough copies of this sheet and while someone goes off to make more copies, other people get up and move around for an impromptu five-minute break.

Everybody returns to his or her sheets with the information from the administration.  Emma leads the group through the issues identified on the sheets.  The first item is top-line salary costs.  Emma describes the proposal as including the salary steps defined in the last contract noting that the first year’s step has already been done.  [I assume this means that the principals have already received a step increase this year if they were scheduled for one, even though the current contract has expired]. Emma says that the district’s proposal is to implement any step changes, and then have the total sum of all principal salary increase over the two-year period be $250k.  Emma pauses, then asks Roger if he wants to take the opportunity to scream about the proposal.  Roger responds just clarifying the proposal, trying to understand if the $250k includes the step changes or not.  An administrator second Roger’s question, and Emma clarifies that the proposal is $250k plus the step increases.  Emma further notes that the changes in sick-time costs are intended to be included in that $250 k.

Emma goes on to explain other parts of the district’s proposal.  She says that the district is proposing a 3% increase instead of 10% increase for promotions.  Roger asks where the 3% number came from, and an administrator references some salary survey or general compensation guidelines.  Roger notes that 3% is similar to the amount given in step increases, that step increases have a low of 2% and a high of 4%.  Roger goes on to note that St. Paul gives 10% for promotional increases, and that by scaling back promotional salary increases, a situation could be created where an AP was making more that a principal at a school.  Roger notes that St. Paul had an issue with an AP earning more than principal.

A principal asks the administrators to clarify the flexibility that the district needs, which has been articulated as the reason for these changes.  Emma says that you (the principals) asked for a 10% increase policy for promotions, what the district is proposing is a promotional increase of at least 3%.

Roger says that there are internal unit promotions [presumably meaning from within the current principal ranks], and there are new placements.  Roger says that the principals had some complaints [presumably about the salaries of promotions vs. new placements], so they want the guidelines to be clarified in the contract.  Roger says that if it is a new external hire, that "we can talk about that".  He acknowledges that initial salary is at the discretion of the district, and he says "you can negotiate that, but it needs to be in the contract". [Roger is saying something about the district’s ability to exercise discretion in salary offered to new-hire principals.  It is unclear how much ability the district has in setting the salary of a new-to-the-district principal, but it is clear they have some]  A principal asks Emma to clarify that when a new principal is hires, they can’t be placed outside of the salary range established in the principals’ contract, and Emma confirms this.

Roger says that when salary increases are made (presumably non-step increases) it would be helpful to the principals if they could get a notice from HR with one sentence about the placement and salary decision. Roger says that it is a problem that principals don’t hear about salary issues until long after the event has occurred, after outside of the window where grievances are allowed.  Emma says that such notification should not be a problem.

Emma moves down the list of issues and references a principal proposal about principals wanting to be able to select teachers for a school site.  Emma says that the negotiators talked about his before, that teacher placement is really a function of the teachers contract.  Emma says that she assumes that the teacher placement proposal brought forward by the principals is not really for the contract.  The principals seem to neither confirm nor deny Emma’s assertion, so Emma finally asks them if they want to propose some specific language for the principals’ contract, and Roger says “sure”.

Emma continues to move down the list of the principals’ proposal.  Emma notes a proposed change to some fitness allowance, and says that the district rejects that. Emma quickly highlights a few other changes that are about costs, health premiums, pension funding, etc, and ends on a category “vacation”, where Emma says that the administration does not want to increase the amount of principals’ vacation.

The conversation switches to insurance, apparently the principals have proposed some different structure of their insurance plan.  The principals seem to be proposing some sort of  “cafeteria” health plan, where everybody would get the same benefit value, regardless if their plan covered the rest of their family or not.  As of now, Roger notes, some principals get family coverage at the same cost to them as a single person.  Roger notes that the family plan costs the district $2200 more per year than the single-person coverage, and that a cafeteria health plan would allow both single and family-covered employees to receive the same value of benefits.

Emma asks if the principals can hold off on this discussion (although it is not clear for how long she is asking to delay the conversation, a week or two years.)  Emma says that the administration is in the process of hiring a benefits director right now, and they are also working with the Labor/Management committee on setting a goal of having one unified health plan across all of bargaining units.  Emma says that having a unified plan is a long-term goal for the district, something that would likely take several years to complete. Emma suggests to the principals that they make a specific proposal about changes that they want and then the district will run it by benefit experts in the Stanton Group (apparently an external employment benefits consulting group). The principals generally agree to this proposal, and Roger makes one final comment that having an attractive benefits package is important to attracting top talent to the district.

Emma switches topics to Q-comp. The principals have apparently mad a proposal to access some of the state Q-comp money.  There are some questions about the Q-comp money and how it relates to ATTPS. [ATTPS is a Minneapolis-specific funding mechanism that was created by MFT and the administration.  Pro-pay funds are for MPS teacher professional development]. Emma explains that ATTPS is funded by state Q-comp funds and "transition funds", and that Pro-pay funding is part of the ATTPS system.  Emma notes that it took years to develop the current ATTPS system and that because of this, it is very complex.  She expresses some distaste for the ATTPS complexity, but says that it does function well.

An administrator asks Roger if the principals' Q-comp proposal is related to pay or something else.  Roger replies that the principals aren’t begging for Q-comp money, but they do feel that responsibilities associated with Q-comp related processes do impact their workload, so it is more just a compensation-for-work-done issue. Roger follow this by saying that if the pay increase is negligible, it might not be even worth developing a plan, but he notes that principals in other districts, notably St. Francis, are putting Q-comp related compensation in their contracts. An administrator mentions TIF grants and how these have been used (presumably in principal contracts) in Chicago, Boston, and Colorado. [TIF grants are "Teacher Improvement Fund" grants from the US Dept. of Education, which is essentially an incentive-pay program with the goal of "Reforming teacher and principal compensation systems so that teachers and principals are rewarded for increases in student achievement”]

Roger then switches back to clarify the district's proposal regarding salary increases.  He asks the district to clarify just what the cost of the step increases in year one and year two are.  Emma says that they were just trying to figure that out, and proposes that the negotiators take a couple-minute break while administrators look at the numbers and figure the yearly step costs.  Still seated at the table a minute later, Emma announces that the step cost is $91k the first year, and "about the same" the second year.  Roger and the principals acknowledge this.

The principals then all migrate out a side door, and the remaining administrators in the room figure out that they have gone to "caucus".  The couple-minute break lasts about tem minutes, before all the principals return.

Roger starts the discussion back up; saying that the next planned meeting time is now a conflict for him.  Principals and administrators go back and forth about calendars, adjusting for administrators' conflicts with MFT negotiations, and various principal conflicts, including a student of the month presentation.  It is eventually agreed that they will next meet September 28, form 9:00 to 11:00, and then again on October 12 from 10:00 to Noon.  Peggy, who has sat quietly through he calendar discussion, says that she will not be able to make either proposed session.  Emma asks if the negotiators want to invite the Stanton Group to one of the upcoming meetings, and people agree, but Roger says that they would want Peggy to be present for that.

Emma invites people to turn back to the administration's proposal, and notes that the rest of the issues are all district-initiated proposals.  She describes the first, saying that the district is going to propose an alternative to seniority-based layoff with principals.  Emma says that principal layoff is not something the administration has had to do, but if the need arises, the administration wants to make sure that the educational impact of the layoff is minimal. 

After taking this in for a few moments, Roger says that he will start by just saying no.  Roger says that with the way the law and licensure work, principals can't bump into the promotional structure as the result of a layoff.  Administrators counter, saying that if a high school principal is laid off, and then other principals are bumped down, until finally an AP is laid off.  Roger asks how licensure plays in to that bumping.  He says that a K-12 principal license wasn't available form the state until 1995; so many of the current principals must have either a high school principal's license, or a lower-grades principal's license.

There is more discussion about why the administration might not want straight seniority- order layoff, and an administrator notes that the principal at Hall IB school has specialized IB training, but has only one year of seniority.

Roger appears to argue that the current seniority-layoff for principals works, mentioning a layoff process that occurred some years ago that was effective using seniority layoff for principals.  The district appears to counter that by saying that during the last principal layoff they were forced to layoff only APs, and they want more flexibility than that next time.

A principal speaks up and says that the administration's proposal is "kind of hypocritical", and his evidence for this is apparently that the district allows people not on the principal's pay scale to be put into AP positions.  An administrator responds to the comment about being hypocritical, acknowledging that there are inconsistencies such as having TOSAs as "Deans", but she says that the administration would like to identify these issues and address them. She says that it is a goal of the administration to have accountability throughout the MPS organization.

Roger speaks up again and says that he wants to go "back to the seniority piece".  Roger says that "you education folks" tend to look at the positive side of things, but lawyers (like him) look at the negative side, worrying about what could go wrong. Roger says that he has "a lot of concern about the possibility for mischief" with the layoff system that the district is proposing, saying that the district could layoff principals for essentially personal reasons by shuffling them into positions that were subsequently eliminated.

Emma tells Roger and the principals that they sound just like the teachers, in their defense of seniority layoff.  Roger protests saying that "you haven't had the problems with the principals".  Emma replies that problem with seniority-based layoff doesn't happen until layoffs have to be done, and that the administration's proposal is simply preparing for that.

There is a brief discussion about special education program administration, and the fact that there is a special education administrator license. The meeting time has expired by this point, and there is no conclusion about what role a special ed administrators license plays in the current or alternate layoff processes.

With the meeting time expired and the next meeting gathering at the door, Roger notes that the meeting time has expired, but asks Emma to clarify the top-line salary increase of the administration's proposal.  He confirms that the proposal is for $250k of total increase, plus the $90k of step increases each year.  Emma confirms this.  Roger then asks what percentage of a raise the $250k is, and Emma responds that she thinks it is about 1%.  She then looks through some reference material, and changes her response, saying that the $250k (over two years) equates to "a little over 2%", as 1% of the current principal salary total would be $117,433.

The meeting breaks ends, and Roger and Emma briefly confer. The principals again retreat together into the MPS offices, joined by Roger.  As I leave, I talk briefly to a principal and they seem interested in my assessment of the process and how it compares to the teachers' process.  I say that they two processes are very different, but I don't have time to say much more, as participants in the next meeting are filling the room.